Yes. Libertarianism could never work in practice, obviously, because eventually someone with better ideas (or marketing skills) than the rest would gain an advantage over the others. Then the others would work for that person, making the single person wealthy, and in order to maintain decent living wages they would likely have to keep working for that one person. And then the state would no longer be libertarian. Pure libertarianism gives people not only the freedom to do harmless things, but the freedom to do things for their own benefit that coincidentally subjugate others - in other words, to elimate liberty.

Hmm. I don't know what I was trying to say before. I was being idealistic - always the same thing as being wrong.

But do you not support anarchy? Do you think anarchy is any more feasible than libertarianism? I think they both have some valuable ideals that could be integrated into a system of government, but as they are both defined by their lack of effective government they cannot exist in a pure form.

Last edited by Petrouchka Rasputin on Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

Thu Oct 03, 2002 8:37 pm

Petrouchka Rasputin

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 852

August spies, the problem with eliminating capitalism is that you eliminate the incentive to innovate and to be efficient. Very few people would care about that if it did not mean more money for them. And that's why capitalism is so productive.

Exactly, caligula. A corporation's only commitment is to its shareholders, and thus what they care about is making a profit. It's the role of the government to charge taxes to discourage pollution, and to provide subsidies to make sure things that benefit society as a whole are affordable (i.e. education).

Thu Oct 03, 2002 8:46 pm

caligula

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 255
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

support anarchy? no way. for the foreseeable future human greed will keep anarchy from being a viable form of rule (or lack thereof, as the case is with anarchy)

Thu Oct 03, 2002 8:58 pm

Petrouchka Rasputin

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 852

Oh, sorry - that was directed at august spies.

Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:22 pm

barlow

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 1100
Location: Leeds, UK

libertarians are stoopid

If libertarians are that "stoopid" how come they all get jobs in libraries, huh?

Fri Oct 04, 2002 12:56 am

Soul Khansenses

Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 2110

hahaha

caligula wrote: i hardly see how one individual being ignorant in matters of health (which by the way is a subject where there is rarely an uncontested recommendation) makes a whole political ideology stupid.

personally i believe that this country would be much better off if the government stayed out of peoples lives as much as possible. i certainly think i know whats best for me more than a group of a couple hundred stupid rich old white guys in DC and harrisburg. and if someone doesnt know better than i am perfectly willing to let them lie in the hole they have dug.

Yeah, and all 300 million or so Americans are just like you Caligula, independent and able to provide for themselves without the aid of anyone!

Yeah!

Let's axe income taxes!

Yeah!

Let's revert back to only using tariffs for federal revenue!

Yeah!

Let's repeal the 13th Amendment, since the Libertarian economy could potentially allow for forced servitude or something akin to it, anyway!

Yeah...? Seriously, though, if you aren't willing to sit on your lawn with a shotgun to protect yourself or concerned with the fact that it is impossible for someone to afford both housing and food on the mean income in this country, without being in debt somehow (and that shit ain't the government's fault!), I would discourage voting Libertarian, simply because you're squandering a vote, and on a dumb fucking selfish free-for-all ideology.

Plus, Gore and Bush were NOT identical, although Gore was undoubtedly a mediocre liberal. I would never have voted for Ralph Nader, a man with the leadership qualities of a dishrag.

Fri Oct 04, 2002 1:00 am

Soul Khansenses

Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 2110

observation

Why are Libertarians all tech geeks, batty old folks, or Bill Mahr?

Fri Oct 04, 2002 1:04 am

caligula

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 255
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: hahaha

Soul Khansenses wrote: Yeah, and all 300 million or so Americans are just like you Caligula, independent and able to provide for themselves without the aid of anyone!

Yeah!

Let's axe income taxes!

Yeah!

Let's revert back to only using tariffs for federal revenue!

Yeah!

Let's repeal the 13th Amendment, since the Libertarian economy could potentially allow for forced servitude or something akin to it, anyway!

Yeah...? Seriously, though, if you aren't willing to sit on your lawn with a shotgun to protect yourself or concerned with the fact that it is impossible for someone to afford both housing and food on the mean income in this country, without being in debt somehow (and that shit ain't the government's fault!), I would discourage voting Libertarian, simply because you're squandering a vote, and on a dumb fucking selfish free-for-all ideology.

Plus, Gore and Bush were NOT identical, although Gore was undoubtedly a mediocre liberal. I would never have voted for Ralph Nader, a man with the leadership qualities of a dishrag.

THANKS FOR READING ALL MY POSTS PAL!

Fri Oct 04, 2002 6:37 am

MessiahCarey

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924

Petrouchka Rasputin wrote: August spies, the problem with eliminating capitalism is that you eliminate the incentive to innovate and to be efficient. Very few people would care about that if it did not mean more money for them. And that's why capitalism is so productive.

I hear this all the time, but I really just don't see it.

By eliminating capitalism you ultimately "weaken" money.

Therefore, there will be other reasons to innovate. The ones that the REAL innovators already use...pride, hunt for respect, necessity...heh.

Money just DILUTES innovation more than anything. If you work in the corporate world I know you understand.

caligula wrote: support anarchy? no way. for the foreseeable future human greed will keep anarchy from being a viable form of rule (or lack thereof, as the case is with anarchy)

Well, of course you're right and you're wrong.

We can't do the anarchy thing right now, but shouldn't it be an eventual goal? Shouldn't our laws that we have now work towards attaining the goal of everyone being well adjusted instead of creating a large disparity in the pecking order?

- Shane

Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:48 am

caligula

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 255
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

MessiahCarey wrote: I hear this all the time, but I really just don't see it.

By eliminating capitalism you ultimately "weaken" money.

Therefore, there will be other reasons to innovate. The ones that the REAL innovators already use...pride, hunt for respect, necessity...heh.

Money just DILUTES innovation more than anything. If you work in the corporate world I know you understand.

in some cases, it does dilute innovation (as when companies patent things and then put the patent on the shelf with no plan on ever using them), but in a lot of ways it will focus research. if everyone were to just research whatever they thought was cool, there wouldnt be enough resources to go around. capitalism provides a convenient way to focus what is worth putting resources towards and what isnt. its not the only way, of course, but it is a way.

but really that isnt my point. my point with capitalism is that people are inherently greedy. Moreso than that, people arent equal, which only feeds into the greed of others. thats the only reason society has moved towards this capitalistic way of doing things is because if people are going to be greedy, we might as well maximize the progress that is a result of that greed.

Quote:

caligula wrote: support anarchy? no way. for the foreseeable future human greed will keep anarchy from being a viable form of rule (or lack thereof, as the case is with anarchy)

Well, of course you're right and you're wrong.

We can't do the anarchy thing right now, but shouldn't it be an eventual goal? Shouldn't our laws that we have now work towards attaining the goal of everyone being well adjusted instead of creating a large disparity in the pecking order?

- Shane

of course. however i dont see anarchy as being a point where everyone is well adjusted. with human nature, anarchy is even more of a selfish free-for-all ideology than libertarianism.

Fri Oct 04, 2002 10:07 am

August Spies

Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.

But do you not support anarchy? Do you think anarchy is any more feasible than libertarianism?

I am not an anarchist, personally I think all ideolgies are rotten (by the nature of ideology). However I lean much more in the direction of anarchism/libertarian socialism. Do I think its more feasible? yes.

Anarchism has been tried several times (makhnovist russia, anarchist spain etc...) when it has been tried it has worked very very well. Well perhaps I should say they worked well INTERNALLY. Unsurprisingly, they failed externally because their enemies had many more weapons and fighting power. But that is not necessarily inevitable. I mean Fascist spain beat Anarchist spain because they had huge support from Italy and Germany, not on its own basis.

my point with capitalism is that people are inherently greedy. Moreso than that, people arent equal, which only feeds into the greed of others. thats the only reason society has moved towards this capitalistic way of doing things is because if people are going to be greedy, we might as well maximize the progress that is a result of that greed.

I really dislike this kind of argument. You are right people have inherent greed. They also have inherent sympathy and communal tenedencies. Humans have inherent hatred/predjudice as well as understanding. The problem with capitalism, imo, is that it promotes and rewards the "bad" tendencies like greed. Why not have a system that promotes more social tendencies?

fuck racism is inherent, we have had it since we have had humans. Doesn't mean we should have slavery or something.

Also I feel like this argument leads people to think that capitalism is like some trait of human nature. Remember capitalism is a relativly new economic system which is far from having operated most of our existance.

Fri Oct 04, 2002 10:18 am

August Spies

Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.

"Do you think anarchy is any more feasible than libertarianism? I think they both have some valuable ideals that could be integrated into a system of government, but as they are both defined by their lack of effective government they cannot exist in a pure form."

I agree anarchisms failure its dogmatic distrust of leadership and goverment, however it is pointing in the right direction (aim for the stars to hit the tree tops). Anarchism is right in opposing HIEARCHY, if not coherently. hiaerchies are what needs to be abolished. Libetarianism recognizes this problem to degree but fails to see the obvious hiearchical power problems capitalism brings into play.

Fri Oct 04, 2002 10:23 am

MessiahCarey

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924

Greed is taught not inherent.

But now we'll probably get into a religious debate. Heh.

Peace,
Shane

Fri Oct 04, 2002 10:44 am

caligula

Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 255
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

i think we can take the greed debate back to genetics and biology and swing wide of the religion debate.

underlying everything else any organism does, is the will to propagate its genes. im not a biology or anthropology major, but i have noticed in my experience that a good bit of human behavior even today (in an age when a whole lot of behvior is learned) can be explained by it being related to the propagation of genes. greed plays right into this. the more you have, the more fit to reproduce you seem to the opposite sex, meaning you have a better chance of attracting a mate with better genes, and the better the chance of your offspring to survive.

altruism is the basis for sympathy and understanding, and mathematically its just a weaker mechanism, to the point where greed supresses it in a good percentage of people.

anyways, my point is i dont believe that we have inherent hatred/prejudice, but little things insignifigant differences like race/religion provide an easy way of convincing a greedy person that he is entitled more than another man.

the problem isnt capitalism. you can have compassionate capitalism (wow, thats such a bad phrase now because of "compassionate conservatism" but you know what i mean) as easy as you can have compassionate anarchy or compassionate socialism. the problem is people. you could set up a system that promotes more social tendencies, but it will degenerate back into a selfish system.

Fri Oct 04, 2002 11:54 am

August Spies

Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.

I feel like you really aren't basing this on history but ideology.

Look at it this way. Humans progress. Capitalism is here. It won't be here in the far future. No social system has remained in place indefinlty, why dopeople think capialism will?

as for your gene theory... I disagree. Humans are comunal animals, we evolved the way we are through communal work. Not by being individualistic. So yes selfishness IS a probably a part of our genes, but so is cooperation. Im not sure what this proves.

Agina ill just point out that systems, like anarchism, have worked when tried.

Fri Oct 04, 2002 11:58 am

Jump to:

Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:32 pm